Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

As most of you know we had a recent incident with a publicly outed sock puppet.

There were many opinions on how the matter should be handled. Some thought that the humiliation was enough punishment, while others thought banning was appropriate.

Well, in order to seek out what was appropriate action, I went to the rules. It was then I discovered that the rules MAKE NO MENTION of sock puppets, nor did I find it stated abywhere "Do this and you will be banned". Pretty much it's been left up to the discretion of Frank B. and the moderator(s) of the forum to decide what action is proper in most circumstances. This has worked well and will continue to be practiced until such a time as Frank B. and the moderators deem it necessary to revise/rewtrite the rules.

In the matter of socks, though, we are taking a stand. There will be ZERO tolerance for sock puppets. Be a sock and be banned. Period.

If you are a sock or have a sock and have not been discovered, pick ONE user account and and use it exclusively. Do not ever use the other screen name again.

ANYONE CAUGHT USING A SOCK PUPPET WILL BE BANNED ONCE DISCOVERED! NO matter who you are.

Two members have been banned as of today due to the use of sock puppets. They are:Pianomadam, using the sock of cklavier, and TheFakeLarryFine, using the sock of threebees.

Originally posted by Ken Knapp: As most of you know we had a recent incident with a publicly outed sock puppet.

There were many opinions on how the matter should be handled. Some thought that the humiliation was enough punishment, while others thought banning was appropriate.

Well, in order to seek out what was appropriate action, I went to the rules. It was then I discovered that the rules MAKE NO MENTION of sock puppets, nor did I find it stated abywhere "Do this and you will be banned". [/b]

...so then why isn't everyone given a fair chance as of the decision? If there was no mention of sock puppets in the rules, it would appear that Pianomadam was playing within those rules at that time, as were a number of other individuals that hadn't been caught.

Although I don't have a personal interest in having Pianomadam nor TFLF stay, it seems that banning them for previous behaviour is punishing them for breaking rules that were not (and still are not) in place.

Does this mean then, that it is open season for exposing the rest of the culprits on here?

Is this action sent as a warning to only to future offenders, or can we/should we hunt around and look for socks in the history and then report them to the mods?

Please understand that I am all for enforcing the rules, but I believe the action taken in this case is not an example of that taking place, but rather a response to some very emotional reactions to an event with a self-serving member.

Also, I think it wise to remember that this forum, since it includes dealers and technicians, will always include advice/opinions/FUD tactics from many more undiscovered, and slightly more crafty Pianomadams. This is one of the reasons Piano World will remain a very dangerous place to those seeking honest and impartial guidance or advice. Not that there isn't some excellent advice given on here, but really, how many new piano buyers can separate the real information from the clever obfuscation? And how many new piano buyers will be influenced by how many positive hits brand x has compared to the negative hits brand y has?

I am sure that some of the more enterprising among us will now see this as a challenge. Let the sock puppetry entertainment commence.

It is surely not difficult for a determined sock. One id at home, one at work, two different IP addresses. Apparently router IP addresses can also be changed quite easily (necessary if a sockie is rumbled).

I would love to know how many memberships lie dormant, registered eons ago, just waiting for sock activation.

Originally posted by Ken Knapp: As most of you know we had a recent incident with a publicly outed sock puppet.

There were many opinions on how the matter should be handled. Some thought that the humiliation was enough punishment, while others thought banning was appropriate.

Well, in order to seek out what was appropriate action, I went to the rules. It was then I discovered that the rules MAKE NO MENTION of sock puppets, nor did I find it stated abywhere "Do this and you will be banned". [/b]

...so then why isn't everyone given a fair chance as of the decision? If there was no mention of sock puppets in the rules, it would appear that Pianomadam was playing within those rules at that time, as were a number of other individuals that hadn't been caught.

Although I don't have a personal interest in having Pianomadam nor TFLF stay, it seems that banning them for previous behaviour is punishing them for breaking rules that were not (and still are not) in place.

Does this mean then, that it is open season for exposing the rest of the culprits on here?

Is this action sent as a warning to only to future offenders, or can we/should we hunt around and look for socks in the history and then report them to the mods?

Please understand that I am all for enforcing the rules, but I believe the action taken in this case is not an example of that taking place, but rather a response to some very emotional reactions to an event with a self-serving member.

Also, I think it wise to remember that this forum, since it includes dealers and technicians, will always include advice/opinions/FUD tactics from many more undiscovered, and slightly more crafty Pianomadams. This is one of the reasons Piano World will remain a very dangerous place to those seeking honest and impartial guidance or advice. Not that there isn't some excellent advice given on here, but really, how many new piano buyers can separate the real information from the clever obfuscation? And how many new piano buyers will be influenced by how many positive hits brand x has compared to the negative hits brand y has?

Interesting to see how everything plays out from here... [/b]

No, it's not. As I said in my original post it was always up to the moderator(s) and Frank B. how situations should be handled. There have been people banned as socks in the past. The problem was that everyone was screaming that the rules were broken and there was not an actual rule. I do not for one minute believe that anyone playing sock puppet believed that it was ok to do. Especially with all the talk on here over the years about it. And with all the talk about "why don't they enforce the rules", I never saw anybody say, "wait a munute, there's no rule against it". Nobody checked for themselves - it was all assumed. Now it's not.

This was a tough decision and all you've said was taken into consideration. It's easy when you're dealing with mean people. Neither of these people are mean.

While the rules don't specifically prohibit socks, they do prohibit self-promotion. IMO, having just re-read the rules, PM was guilty of violating several of them - sublty and indirectly, yes - but perhaps that's even worse.

Regardless of all that, not banning PM would have made a sad statement about the importance of truth, accuracy, and credibility on this forum.

I spoke out about enforcing the rules, but always assumed there was one. As Ken noted this subject has come up many times so there is no doubt in my mind that the guilty parties knew the potential consequences. I am very pleased to know that there is now a clear policy and that those who have been caught have suffered an appropriate consequence. PW will be a better place for this. Thank you.

It has always amazed me why someone would do such a thing (sock-puppeting) in the first place. In fact, it took me a while to figure out what a sock-puppet was to start with. (PW is indeed an educational institution )

I don’t know… maybe I’m just gullible. Thanks for protecting the gullible, Ken and Frank.

Rick

_________________________
Piano enthusiast and amateur musician: "Treat others the way you would like to be treated". Yamaha C7. YouTube Channel

Originally posted by Sir Lurksalot: While the rules don't specifically prohibit socks, they do prohibit self-promotion. IMO, having just re-read the rules, PM was guilty of violating several of them - sublty and indirectly, yes - but perhaps that's even worse.

Regardless of all that, not banning PM would have made a sad statement about the importance of truth, accuracy, and credibility on this forum. [/b]

Originally posted by Piano World:Stop the Self-Promotion![/b]It is NOT ACCEPTABLE[/b] for you to create posts thinly disguised as an innocent discussion when in fact they are nothing more than a promotion for your business.

If you make a genuine effort to be honest and helpful, you just may pick up some business because people trust you. That's fine, I have no problem with that. Anything beyond that, see our Professional Advertising options.

Some Guidelines:[/b]

Not Necessarily Self Promotion...[/b]If a private individual is enthusiastic about a brand and talks about it a lot, it's not self-promotion. (quick side question about this one... I am self-employed as a piano tuner/technician, and an associate member of PTG. (I used to briefly (for a couple weeks or so) work for a local Baldwin dealer before Ric Overton bought them, and around the same time lost my job tuning for a local Steinway/Yamaha dealer due to "conflict of interest".) I happen to like Baldwin Hamilton studio upright pianos, especially older ones like late 1940s to early 1960s, and often post to that effect. Would I fall into the category of this rule, or since I am a technician, have worked for a Baldwin dealer in the past, and happen to currently own two aforementioned pianos, should I be more careful?)

Now for what we do consider self-promotion:[/b]

*snip*If you're in the business and hide yourself behind an alias[/b] to talk down/up a brand you're self promoting.*snip*

This is not all encompassing and there can be exceptions to the cases stated above, but this is a general idea on how we view the subject.

And I'm actually in the same boat Rickster is/was... I'm not sure I even know what a sock puppet is[/b]!

What would be fun is to set up a forum division (the only one) where banned sock puppets can post whatever they want. That way, for kicks, the rest of us can visit there and know the environment we're in. I'm not afraid of sock puppets. We just have to give them their own little fishbowl where we can observe them for our entertainment.

Hi guys! I think I can deduce what a sock puppet is, but I have not seen an actual definition in this thread. Is that where one person assumes two or more identities then stages exchanges between them, generally as a form of self-promotion? If that is correct, it strikes me as dishonest on its face - seems like a good idea to ban it.Brad

As one who as pushed the envelope and perhaps been a bit too crass. I will say good call, fair and balanced. Honky, I don't know if Norbert ever hid behind an IP? He may shill and push his stuff right up to the limit of Ken's patience like (some of) the rest of us, but I'm not sure he ever could be considered a sock??? And Steve you were right the other site is not very "interesting."

_________________________
Kenny BlankenshipSelling anything anyone will buy as the "Walmartizisation of the industry continues. (Still making a fair living and still having clients like me)